I disagree with you Brian,
As far as I am concerned, here in Quebec, NACHI is the best alternative for someone who wants the job well performed.
One question for you though, do you remember your first inspection? Did you tell your client it was your first? What about inspection franchises who send out newbies? I hope they are NACHI trained!
My opinion!
Beauchemin Marc-Andre
Brian.
I do not know your interest in this matter. However, the InterNachi Alberta Chapter is constantly requiring education improvements for member inspectors and now all Alberta members will require very rigid peer review inspections.
Just talked to an insurance broker this morning and he reminded me that the “surety bond” used to be called a “performance bond”. The purpose of this bond is to guarantee that the work would be completed as per the terms of the contract.
In our case Our agreement calls for us to do an inspection and deliver a report within a specified time limit. If we collect the money and do not do the inspection the client would have a claim.
We told them during the advisory committee meetings that it was not required and it is not going to do anything but cost us more money.
Having to buy a $10,000.00 performance bond to cover a $400 to $600 fee does not make any sense. Especially when you consider that we are on site before we get paid the risk of us running off without doing the inspection is pretty low.
Regarding “performance bonds”:
A “bond which guarantees against breach of contract. ” 440 P. 2d 600, 605.
Generally used in building contracts to guarantee that a contractor will perform the contract. In the event the contractor defaults or otherwise breaches the contract, the owner of the building project may use the proceeds of the bond to complete the project. 423 N.E. 2d 390, 393. Depending upon its terms, the proceeds of a performance bond may also be used to pay subcontractors who furnish labor and materials. 187 A. 2d 799, 802. See also bond [performance bond].
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/performance-bond#ixzz1PxqzlrU2
Although from my years of project management and spec writing experience - this could also be interpreted to apply for “breach of contract” through a claim of negligence.
[FONT=Arial][size=2]"Liability for negligence is a civil, not a criminal, matter. It is for the victim to prove that the defendant owed them a “duty of care”, that that duty was breached, and that they have sustained either foreseeable harm or economic loss as a consequence of the negligence alleged.
If successful, the victim will be awarded damages assessed on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained."
So unless this is clearly articulated, without any questionable doubt, there can be a valid reason for the posting of “performance bonds” or concerns about requiring. It’s just another form of protecting consumers.
[/size][/FONT]
Vern correctly notes:
Please don’t misunderstand me… I too believe that a $10K Surety Bond is overkill. I was merely pointing out that this was not very well explained/exampled by the insurance people during the meeting.
… While I am thinking about it (and to change the subject somewhat)… If this is all part of the ‘Fair Trading Act’, what legal recourse does a Home Inspector have if a Client cancels the inspection last minute (less than 48 hours notice)? I know some Inspection firms take the Clients credit card info up front at the time of booking, some Inspection firms charge a cancellation fee. Collecting is a whole other issue.
According to Kim Smith, $10,000.00 is the smallest surety bond issued.
If sufficient inspectors contact Scott Hood that the bond is not needed as no prepayment of fees happen. He has the authority reduce the bond amount to $0.00. If it becomes evident that the bond is required he can increase the value back to $10,000.00.
The CAPHI members reading this can also contact Scott Hood on the issue.
You’re positive it is a surety bond and not a fidelity bond required? I don’t understand how a surety bond makes any sense. Inspectors don’t get paid until after we do the inspection, so why would they need a surety bond? A fidelity bond makes more sense.